David Campese once said he felt Australia did a favour to the rugby world by beating England in the World Cup final. His logic was that other countries would attempt to duplicate whatever brand of rugby the world’s best team provided.
It’s easy to think of this as a typical Campese idiosyncrasy, but listening to many of my English friends talk about what ‘winning rugby’ is since last year’s world cup, I can say now for certain that David Campese was right.
England’s victory against Australia last year was well deserved. The better team won.
You can’t escape the reality in rugby that a front-row had a ‘ripple-effect’ on the whole team. When a scrum is stable, the rest of the play is stable. When it becomes shaky, everything falls apart.
In the case of last year’s quarter final loss, there was such a ‘ripple-effect’ happening as a result of Australia’s poor scrum that by the time it came for George Gregan to distribute the ball, he was blown out of the water!
England were somewhat criticised for playing 10-man rugby, but they justifiably won that game on its merits.
It was interesting to note, however, that the English media seemed to become defensive when it came to any criticism their team received over their conservative tactics.
They were quick to laud them for being gritty, determined, and having a fighting spirit in the face of adversity. And rightfully so in my eyes.
However, they began to praise England for playing what they termed ‘winning rugby’. They applauded them for not taking risks and ‘knowing how to win games’.
The truth was England won that game because of their superiority in the forwards, not because they played low-risk rugby where they kept the ball in tight and and in opposition territory.
The loss New Zealand suffered in the quarter-final did little to pacify the English media.
While I enjoy it every time New Zealand loses, I have to say it perhaps would have been better for world rugby if New Zealand had won the World Cup because they operated with a greater scope than England and South Africa.
Despite poor refereeing from Wayne Barnes, I don’t think anybody can dispute New Zealand had ten minutes to win that game. A drop-goal was on when they were five metres from the line, but nobody stepped up to win the game for them.
New Zealand stopped thinking in that game. Yes, they would have won if Wayne Barnes had done a solid job, but they were not the first team to suffer as a result of poor refereeing, and when the game is still there to be won, you have to think of the right options to take.
But what impact did New Zealand’s loss have on the British media?
They pushed the idea that England knows how to win the close games, while New Zealand doesn’t.
There seemed to be a misconception by the British media that England were criticised for playing boring rugby because they go for drop-goals.
They perceived what Australians and New Zealanders interpret as ‘positive rugby’ to be New Zealand attempting to score a try, when a drop-goal would win them the game.
Will Carling was one who cited that it was ‘arrogance’ by New Zealand to try and score a try and not win the game with a drop-goal. This led them to proclaiming that playing their criticised brand of conservative rugby was really ‘positive’ and the best way to win close games.
The dull rugby England are criticised of has nothing to do with drop-goals, just as it has nothing to do with having a strong tight-five that dominated Australia.
England are criticised for playing ‘negative rugby’ because they rely on the mistakes of their opposition. The worst part of this was that both Australia and France made plenty of mistakes that allowed this to happen.
Had France played to their full capabilities, they likely would have beaten England.
England’s first instinct was to kick the ball up-field, regardless of what other opportunities were present in the game.
I’m not talking about kicking out of their own 22; I’m talking about kicking wherever they are on the field. And while there’s nothing negative about going for drop-goals, they often went for drop-goals when they weren’t on because quite simply, despite coming close to scoring tries, their backline was incapable of manufacturing tries.
This led to many failed drop-goal attempts.
Yet when Wilkinson knocked the occasional one over, suddenly England were playing that winning brand of rugby again.
The reactions of the English media annoyed me.
While they harped on about their winning team’s rugby, I wonder how many of them would have backed England to beat New Zealand in the World Cup, the same New Zealand who apparently doesn’t know how to win the big games?
I think New Zealand would have beaten England in the World Cup final.
Despite being limited in many areas, England beat Australia because they had ascendancy in the forwards (where the game always starts), while in no area of play were England superior to New Zealand.
They could not have dominated their scrum like they did with Australia.
I was disappointed with France in their semi-final against England. Because England was likely to score points only by kicking penalties and drop-goals, I picked France, believing that England couldn’t score more than 15 points. They did only score 15 points, and to my great surprise, they scored a try.
It was the only try England scored in the World Cup against a team ranked in the top ten in the world – and it was a lucky try that resulted from some sloppy work from their fullback.
France had plenty of opportunities to win that game, but there was some aimless kicking from their five-eighth and they tumbled out with what was probably their worst performance of the tournament.
The final provided for some dour rugby that concerned rugby administrators trying to promote rugby as an entertaining game. The South African defence was well organised, and England simply couldn’t ask many questions of it with their limitations.
Once South Africa had ascendancy on the score board, they were quite content to boot the ball downfield, where it was unlikely England could manufacture anything. England couldn’t kick for territory either, as the South African line-out was supreme.
After the events of the World Cup, England has not ceased to discuss the virtues of their team’s gritty performances and winning rugby. They harp endlessly about the merits of going for drop-goals, keeping it in tight always, and kicking away possession all the time.
But my frustration boiled over during the Crusaders versus Waratahs game, which was viewed by many of my English friends.
The Crusaders played what I felt was an excellent game.
I especially liked how they stretched the Waratahs’ defence to score their first try. Their maul was worked to perfection and Carter put the game out of reach for the Waratahs with a drop-goal.
It was a fine game that I felt displayed the wide scope of the Crusaders’ capabilities.
What was the very first sentence of many media outlets in England? ‘Now who’s playing negative rugby?’
Reports were everywhere about how New Zealand seem to have learned how to win close games now, and how when it’s close, you should adopt the approach England always take.
They used the Super 14 final as some kind of vindication for how England won games in the World Cup. The Crusaders maul was highlighted as ‘keeping it in tight’ like England has done so many times.
But the drop-goal by Carter got by far the most media attention, and was seized upon mercilessly as an example of exactly how a team should win the game. Carter’s drop-goal was a fine option to take, but the English shouldn’t be confined to believing that only one option should be taken each and every time.
In my opinion, it was bad for world rugby that such a limited side – a defensive kicking side – progressed so far in the World Cup. I do not see England winning against New Zealand until they begin to recognise the many different possibilities rugby provides.
My main criticism of the English side is that they neglect the different possibilities for attack the game provides and always take the conservative route.
Their media doesn’t care though. They don’t care that England has difficulty scoring tries and play a limited brand of rugby.
As someone once said to me: “I guess that separates the flag wavers from the rugby fans”.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
The icing on the cake in the Western Force's win over the Crusaders was the return of Kurtley Beale. For former teammate Matt Toomua,…
As the Crusaders’ season went from bad to worse, Kurtley Beale and Izack Rodda made bright returns to Super Rugby to help the Force…
Sam Carter produced the "knockout blow" in the Force's first win over the Crusaders since 2013.
The Force supporters were up in arms when they saw the replay of George Bell's grounding on the big screen. Was it a knock…
Quinten Strange was fed up with the Force No.9 protesting to the ref as Carlo Tizzano was shown the cheese, referring to a "dangerous"…
It looked like Riley Hohepa had the slightest bit of his heel on the line - but you couldn't convince the Force fans of…
